On Dec 20, 2005 08:17 AM, Eric Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Yes for zero'd initialized variables, GCC puts them into BSS to say
> >space in the executable.
>
> Thanks. But, you say 'to say space in the executable'. I'm not clear
> what does it mean.
"save space".
Gr.
Steven
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 02:11:46PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I think an algorithm which should work fairly reliably in the general
> case is:
>
> 1) Are there any old insns with RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P set?
> If no, stop.
> 2) For each old insn with RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P set:
> a) i
>Yes for zero'd initialized variables, GCC puts them into BSS to say
>space in the executable.
Thanks. But, you say 'to say space in the executable'. I'm not clear
what does it mean.
Eric.
On Dec 20, 2005, at 2:02 AM, Eric Fisher wrote:
Hello,
For such a program,
int a=0;
int main(void)
{
...
}
We will see the compiler put the variable 'a' into the bss section.
That means that 'a' is a non-initialized variable. I don't know if this
is the gcc's strategy.
Yes for zero'd initi
Hello,
For such a program,
int a=0;
int main(void)
{
...
}
We will see the compiler put the variable 'a' into the bss section.
That means that 'a' is a non-initialized variable. I don't know if this
is the gcc's strategy.
Happy Christmas.
Eric.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 06:04:46PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Jim Blandy wrote:
> >On 12/19/05, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>But it doesn't do what people really want it to by design. :-(
> >
> >And that would be?
>
> http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 02:56:43PM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> Subversion provides an "opt-in" version of keyword substitution, and
> provides a $Revision$ keyword. It might take a little scriptery to
> get that into the form GCC wants.
>
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.advanced.props
Hi everybody,
I am working on the intermediary tree representation of GCC right now
(writing a parser for it). I have a question regarding that.
If I declare a struct containing 2 fields like that in C:
struct foo {
int var_a;
char var_b;
} afoo;
afoo.var_a = 0;
afoo.var_b =
Hi Paolo
> It supports all the bells and whistles like bubblestraps and
> restageN, which help during development. make restrap (taking a
> non-bootstrap build and using it as stage1) is not supported. make
> restageN is called make all-stageN, and there is also make
> all-stageN-gcc to rebuild gc
PR 22275 is about a change in the structure layout used by GCC when
#pragma pack is mixed with zero-width bitfields. In particular, in GCC
3.3 and earlier, zero-width bitfields still forced the next element to
be placed on an alignment boundary, just as they do in unpacked
structures. In GCC 3.4
On Dec 19, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Jim Blandy wrote:
On 12/19/05, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But it doesn't do what people really want it to by design. :-(
And that would be?
http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html#version-value-in-source
I would like something, that substitutes automat
On 12/19/05, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > Subversion provides an "opt-in" version of keyword substitution, and
> > provides a $Revision$ keyword.
>
> But it doesn't do what people really want it to by design. :-(
And that would be?
On Dec 18, 2005, at 2:17 PM, Kevin Andrew Kaploe wrote:
are they telling the truth?
Simple answer, Yes. The long answer is off-topic for this list.
A hint at the long answer lies in dependencies. If those are
precisely in sync, then there is no point at recompilation. If they
are out of
On Dec 19, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Jim Blandy wrote:
Subversion provides an "opt-in" version of keyword substitution, and
provides a $Revision$ keyword.
But it doesn't do what people really want it to by design. :-(
Subversion provides an "opt-in" version of keyword substitution, and
provides a $Revision$ keyword. It might take a little scriptery to
get that into the form GCC wants.
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.advanced.props.html#svn.advanced.props.special.keywords
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem that is bugging me is if there is more than one
> instruction in the repleacement sequence, which one do you copy the
> REG_FRAME_RELATED_EXPR to?
I think an algorithm which should work fairly reliably in the general
case is:
1) Are there
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On i386 we replace (add sp -4) with (push reg). This generates faster
> > and smaller code.
> >
> > However, we are not copying RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P from the old
> > instructions to the new, and so we are not emittin
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On i386 we replace (add sp -4) with (push reg). This generates faster
> and smaller code.
>
> However, we are not copying RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P from the old
> instructions to the new, and so we are not emitting unwind information
> for the stack pointer a
There are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] gcc]$ grep lang_checks Makefile.in
lang_checks=check-gcc
lang_checks_parallel = $(lang_checks:=//%)
$(lang_checks_parallel): site.exp
$(lang_checks): check-% : $(TESTSUITEDIR)/site.exp
Will adding @check_languages@ to lang_checks to make it support other
languages?
H
On i386 we replace (add sp -4) with (push reg). This generates faster
and smaller code.
However, we are not copying RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P from the old
instructions to the new, and so we are not emitting unwind information
for the stack pointer adjustment. The breaks stack traces on gcj, and
I susp
On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 13:58, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > I suspect that if you run a bootstrap of gcc on Linux with
> > PWDCMD=/bin/pwd it will fail too.
>
> Yes, I saw a suggestion about this on IRC, but I tried it - it doesn't
> fail. The path that matters is not one ever returned by PWDCMD bu
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm opening a new branch and would like to request some assistance
> updating the online material. Specifically, how do I add the branch
> information to http://gcc.gnu.org/svn.html#devbranches. Also, would it be
> possible to create an associated pr
Hi all,
This is my first post. :-)
Recently, I found an odd behavior about dynamic_cast
across shared libraries.
This is my box:
linux kernel-2.4.21
gcc-3.4.3
(Check out my test_case.tar.bz2 for complete source
codes.)
I defined these classes and functions in libbase.so:
struct Base
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 01:26:18PM +, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 05:02, H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> >
> > In my patch, gcc/REVISION is created by gcc_update. If you don't use
> > gcc_update, gcc/REVISION may not be there.
> >
> > In any case, when we agree on what to put in gcc/
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 01:18:21PM +, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> I think the problem is PWDCMD (defaults to pwd) in the top-level
> makefile. If your shell builds in pwd, then things will work. If it
> doesn't then you'll get /bin/pwd which gives the canonical path. Bash
> has a built-in pwd,
(But let's give Paolo some time to address the technical issues first;
we are still in stage 1, so only developers, packagers, and brave testers
are supposed to use what is going to become GCC 4.2. ;-)
Also the reason why I've been collecting issues so far, instead of
posting all patches for ap
Daniel Berlin wrote:
On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 00:48 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Hi,
Someone caused a >10% compile time regression yesterday for CSiBE, see
http://www.csibe.org/draw-diag.php?branchid=mainline&flags=-Os&rel_flag=--none--&dataview=Timeline&finish_button=Finish&draw=sbs&view=1&b
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 05:02, H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> In my patch, gcc/REVISION is created by gcc_update. If you don't use
> gcc_update, gcc/REVISION may not be there.
>
> In any case, when we agree on what to put in gcc/REVISION, I can
> provide a new patch.
Maybe we should just set up the commit f
On Sun, 2005-12-18 at 16:49, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 01:28:48PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Looks like the new toplevel bootstrap infrastructure broke
> > bootstrapping on OpenBSD. I get a bootstrap comparison which is
> > caused by differences in the compilation dir
> Sorry for wrting to this mail address, but I did not find anywhere
> in the bug reporting documentation how to report a bug on
> the...documentation itself
You can report documentation bugs in the GCC Bugzilla bug tracking
system. You can read more on the subject at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
Paolo, what do you think?
I think I agree. After all when I added the "ln -s" support we did not
have anything remotely similar to the current logic for "make all",
"make unstage", "make stage".
Paolo
31 matches
Mail list logo
